incident with noah's son

The Incident with Noah's Son, Ham9:18Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.20And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.24So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25Then he said:“Cursed be Canaan;A servant of servantsHe shall be to his brethren.”26And he said:“Blessed be the Lord,The God of Shem,And may Canaan be his servant.27May God enlarge Japheth,And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;And may Canaan be his servant.”28And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died (Gen. 9:18-29 NKJV).

The beginning of this passage is straightforward. Noah became a farmer. He planted a vineyard. He allowed the grapes to ferment. He became drunk. His reasoning diminished, he slept it off in his tent, but he lay naked, exposed to anyone who entered.Whether Noah’s drunken state was accidental, or more along the lines of a celebration carried a bit too far (think Bob Cratchet, Tiny Tim’s father, after celebrating Christmas in A Christmas Carol), is not given any judgment in this story.

The initial reading of our English translations gives us to understand that Ham, the middle son, saw his father in this compromised position and spoke of his father’s nakedness to his two brothers. Shem and Japheth were more respectful of their father, and covered the man without seeing his exposed parts.Here we see the fifth commandment come into play. Although not yet given as a commandment this far into Genesis, respect for parents must have been considered one of the basic laws governing society. Ham’s act showed great disrespect for his father, while his brothers obeyed the commandment of respect.

Was there more to the incident than Ham seeing his father unclothed?In the search for finding a more serious crime on Ham’s part, we relegate one of the Commandments to a lower status. Parental disrespect does not seem enough to warrant a curse on Ham’s descendants. We look for something more sensational, preferably something that we have not done ourselves.

Perhaps we have become numb to something as simple as parental disrespect. There does not have to be a more sensational, over-the-top cause for Noah's curse. We must set a higher bar than exists now, both for ourselves and for our culture.Matthew Henry’s commentary does an excellent job of convicting Ham for disrespect and using this act as justification for Noah’s curse on Ham’s son, Canaan.

Mr. Henry’s commentary on the passage is probably accurate. Two parts of the story may lead us to conclude that Ham’s act was a physical violation of his father rather than a verbal disrespect, but there is a strong argument against each of them.First, Noah “knew” what had been done. There would be no evidence of disrespect when Noah awoke, but a physical violation would have left evidence. On the other hand, Noah may have been told.Second, Noah’s pronouncement of a severe curse on Ham indicates a violation of comparable severity. A sexual violation deserves the strongest condemnation. On the other hand, Noah and his sons had just escaped from an evil society, and this environment may have had an impact on Ham’s character. This instance probably was not an isolated revelation of Ham’s true nature. The curse was on Ham for his character, probably also visible in his son, Canaan.Finally, the most convincing evidence that Ham did not physically violate his father but saw Noah’s nakedness is that, if Ham had physically violated his father, telling his brothers would have been highly unlikely.

Ham showed blatant disrespect for his father. Although the fifth Commandment had not yet been pronounced, the understanding of this law is basic to any civil group. Shem and Japheth stand as witnesses to this understanding.

Noah then pronounces his curse on Canaan and his blessings on Shem and Japheth.Note that God had blessed Noah’s three sons in Genesis 9:1. Noah had no authority to undo that blessing, which included Ham. So Noah cursed Ham’s son, Canaan, as a surrogate. This is in the spirit of “…visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children…” (Ex. 34:7 NKJV). Incidentally, “Canaan,” according to Strong’s H3667, means “humiliated.”

This is a good time to understand the nature of the three “fathers” of all of mankind through an understanding of their names: Shem - Strong’s 8035, same as 8034: “…by implication honor, authority, character….” Ham – Strong’s 2526, same as 2525, “hot….” Japheth – Strong’s 3315, from 6601; “expansion” (the primitive root 6601 meaning includes “to enlarge”).

Noah curses Canaan (as a substitute for Ham) to be a servant of servants. The statement, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant” could as easily be translated, “Blessed be the Lord God and Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”With this understanding, Canaan is a servant of Shem, who is a servant of the Lord God. Shem is a servant of God and, therefore, Canaan is a servant of a servant.“May God enlarge Japheth (make him successful), and may he dwell in the tents of Shem (as a brother); and may Canaan be his servant” gives Canaan the same status, a servant to a servant of God.​From this, we understand Shem and Japheth remain as brothers. We will see that these two represent the Jews and the Gentiles. According to this story, both Jew and Gentile have authority over “Canaan.”We will explore this further as we look at Chapter 10, the descendants of the three brothers, and Chapter 11, the dispersion from Babel.Next article